A confused BJP that lacks a majority in Parliament, a weakened Prime Minister who lacks the courage of conviction, and a Congress-led Opposition that lacks a long-term plan for India’s inclusive development but only seeks short-term electoral gains have combined to kill a key administrative reform. The lateral entry scheme meant to revitalise a moribund babudom is dead. It will be long before a strong and visionary PM arrives on the scene with a resolve to infuse life into it.
Privately, many forward-looking leaders across party lines admit that the country’s administrative machinery needs radical reforms, and that the lateral entry scheme is one of them. They will also tell you that to be meaningful, the scheme should be free from the provision of quotas. But the election-winning priorities of parties are so heavily influenced by the warped debate on “social justice” that there are hardly any prominent voices defending a scheme the Modi government introduced only to withdraw it at lightning speed.
The sorry predicament of Modi 3.0 is obvious even before it has completed 100 days. The feeblest dissent from coalition partners is enough for it to reverse its steps. The Congress’s hypocrisy is also out in the open. In its eagerness to embrace caste politics and a caste-based development model, and a hurried bid to recover lost support base, especially in north India, it is trying to outdo even Kanshi Ram and Chandrashekhar Azad (Raavan). See how stiffly it opposed the lateral entry scheme. Rahul Gandhi slammed it by calling it “privatisation of IAS”, forgetting that his own father, grandmother and great-grandfather also invited external non-IAS, non-quota talent into their governments. Bizarrely, his party supported the Bharat Bandh on August 21, which denounced the recent Supreme Court verdict on sub-categorisation of SC/ST quotas. His colleague Siddaramaiah, Karnataka chief minister, has welcomed the verdict as “historic”.
Why does India need a certain number of external professionals to join the administration, especially at the middle and senior levels? And why is it necessary to exempt such lateral entry from the provision of reservation? The answer is obvious to all who know the glaring shortcomings in our system of governance at the Centre and in states and municipal corporations. For India to overcome the gigantic challenges in development and meet the rising aspirations of its 1.45 billion people, especially those belonging to poor and neglected communities, nothing is more crucial than efficient, responsive and results-oriented governance. Which caste or religion public servants belong to is immaterial. What should matter is whether they are competent, pro-people and can deliver outcomes that benefit the nation as a whole and, particularly, the disadvantaged citizenry.
For example, officers in education, healthcare or any of the employment-promoting departments, regardless of their caste or community identity, will contribute more to the cause of social and economic justice if they are highly competent and dedicated. Competence and commitment, which are caste-agnostic, are also imperative in other fields of governance — from justice delivery to scientific research, from rural development to women’s empowerment — since everything cumulatively promotes or hinders the holistic development of society, especially those left behind.
There is also a second compelling reason. Challenges in development and governance are becoming highly complex in the modern world. Therefore, higher echelons of administration require professionals with deep domain knowledge and expertise, rather than generalists like most job-secure IAS officers who hop from one domain to another in relatively short stints with little people-monitored accountability. The traditional public service system does not produce enough of such specialists. In contrast, India’s burgeoning private sector companies, top-notch universities, research laboratories, think tanks, cultural industries, media and other civil society institutions have many professionals both competent and eager to offer their services to nation-building. Why should the nation be deprived of this precious resource? Why should public service remain a monopoly of IAS or IFS officers, who, quite often, become an elite “caste” unto themselves and fiercely resist the entry of external talent?
Some may argue: Let there be lateral entry, but with strict adherence to reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs. This defeats the very raison d’être of the reform. Rahul Gandhi recently posed the wrong question in Parliament by wanting to know how many officers from quota categories were among secretaries to the Government of India. The question to be debated is different. What contributes more to social and economic justice for SCs, STs, OBCs and other marginalised communities? Is it a small number of elite quota beneficiaries in the higher levels of government service or competent, efficient, accountable and high-quality governance that can benefit millions of people from the very same communities? Sadly, the debate on the lateral entry scheme has been hijacked by quota “Brahmins” at the expense of multitudes who remain victims of poor governance. Their opposition to the creamy-layer concept also shows their exclusionary touch-me-not mindset.
Another question: Should India remain blind to international experience? All rich countries, and many developing countries, offer public service opportunities to highly competent and interested professionals. In the US and China, it is routine for specialists in universities and private sector companies to be called upon to work in government departments, including in foreign service.
No sane person who is wedded to social justice, economic democracy and other constitutional values can be indifferent to the need to ensure a fair reflection of diversity in India’s governance structure. But indifference bordering on disrespect for competence and commitment in public service is detrimental to the realisation of these very lofty values.
How can we make lateral entry socially representative without mandatory quotas? We must accelerate efforts to build needed competencies in professionals from less represented sections of society. This requires major and long-neglected reforms in government-run universities, whose low standards are hurting the poor among SCs, STs, OBCs and all other communities. Private sector companies too must come forward to provide ample growth opportunities to talented human resources in these communities.
Above all, government service demands a paramount virtue from all who wish to enter its portals through regular or lateral channels. At work, they must “annihilate” their own caste and religious identities, and embrace only one “jaati” — of public servants — and only one dharma (duty): Service of India and all Indians without any discrimination.
The writer was a close aide to former
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee
